/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11280923]

cringe

[Anonymous No.11280928]

>>11280923
0.999 = 1-[math]\epsilon[/math] where [math]\epsilon[/math] is infinitesmial according to infinitesimal calculus

[Anonymous No.11280929]

>Welcome to another rehash of a thread made hundreds of times on /sci/ at this point.

[Anonymous No.11281195]

>>11280929
I was just about to say the exact same thing. This same exact thread is made at least once per week and yet gets at least dozens of replies each time.

[Anonymous No.11281197]

Mods if you actually want to improve this board, permaban the 0.999...!=1 spammers at sight. They're invariably high schoolers who contribute nothing to the board, know no maths nor science, are only interested in le trolling. I guarantee that many high-quality people have left /sci/ precisely because of people like OP.

[Anonymous No.11281203]

>Let N be a non-negative number which is smaller than any positive number. Do you agree that C = 0 and no other number satisfies this ?
>Do you agree that for any tolerance (such as 1/1000000), the difference 1 - 0.99... must be smaller than the tolerance ?
>Do you agree that you have just shown that 1 - 0.99.. is a non-negative number which is smaller than any positive number ?
>???
>PROFIT

[Anonymous No.11281209]

>>11280923

Infinitesimals, including 1-.999..., are an inevitable result of treating infinite values as something accomplishable. Without them you get weird artifacts like two different zeros with different properties.

[Anonymous No.11281214]

[Anonymous No.11281220]

>>11280929
>>11281195
>>11281197
>newfags can't wrap their heads around /sci/ culture
why are you even here?
>>11281197
As if a few retarded teenagers could solve a puzzle that has plagued math professors for centuries.

[Anonymous No.11281223]

>>11281214
>let's pretend finite is infinite

[Anonymous No.11281229]

>>11280923
You can even proof it by geometrical progressions and the definition of a repeating decimal, but it is still an identity principle problem, [math]0.\overline{9}[/math] shouldn't equal 1, otherwise the way we use numbers results in A=B ∧ A != B which is paradoxical.
I don't know why mathematicians refuse to use the arrow (approaches) for the result while they use it for x. So you have [math]\lim_{x \to 2} x^2 = 4[/math] instead of [math]\lim_{x \to 2} x^2 \to 4[/math]; which should give you paradoxical statements such as 'as x approaches 2, x equals 2'. The refusal from mathematicians to use clear, proper wording and to let notations evolve ('I took 4 months to learn this muddled mess so you gotta do it 2') is what drives people away from learning math, which is undeniably the most important field there is.
>inb4 muh convergence

[Anonymous No.11281230]

>>11280923

[Anonymous No.11281245]

>>11281230
>>11280923

[Anonymous No.11281287]

>>11281229
>I don't know why mathematicians refuse to use the arrow (approaches) for the result while they use it for x. So you have limx2x2=4limx2x2=4 instead of limx2x24limx2x24;
LIMIT is by definition the NUMBER that is being approached. there are no paradoxes and the notation makes perfect sense. the LIMIT doesn't approach anything. the FUNCTION does. LIMIT is what the FUNCTION approaches.

[Anonymous No.11281288]

>>11281229
No. The correct answer is not dead homeless gays

[Anonymous No.11281298]

>>11281287
So what is the difference between limx2x2=4 and x^2=4 | x=2 ?
real questikmn dont shout pls

[Anonymous No.11281302]

>>11281298
write in latex pls, I don't understand the question

[Anonymous No.11281306]

>>11281203
>>Let N be a non-negative number which is smaller than any positive number. Do you agree that C = 0 and no other number satisfies this ?

No.

[Anonymous No.11281307]

>>11281306
do you work in hyperreal field ?

[Anonymous No.11281313]

>>11281298
[math]\lim_{x \to 2} x^2 = 4[/math] and [math]{x^2=4}\vert{x=2}[/math]

[Anonymous No.11281317]

>>11281302
>>11281313
btw

[Anonymous No.11281318]

>>11281317
what does the [math]|[/math] mean ?

[Anonymous No.11281321]

>>11281313
This expression doesnt make any fucking sense

[Anonymous No.11281327]

>>11281313
I also dont understand your question. Both statements are true. One is a limit of a function at a point and the other is a function evaluated directly at a point. Different, but both true, statements.